ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON v. FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA et al
| ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON |
| FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, FLOYD COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, DAN FOREMAN, FRANK LOOP, FLOYD COUNTY JAIL and DAN FURMAN |
| 1:2024cv00427 |
| March 6, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Tim A Baker |
| Matthew P Brookman |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER REINSTATING CASE AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:After the Court dismissed this case on the grounds that Plaintiff Estate's representative is a frivolous filer, Plaintiff appealed--averring that the Estate's representative is not the same Andrew Johnston who is restricted from filing in this Court. The Court viewed Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal as an implied request for reconsideration and informed the Seventh Circuit that it is inclined to grant the request. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a formal request for reconsideration in this Court. Upon the receipt of the Court's order, the Seventh Circuit remanded. Having considered Plaintiff's request for reconsideration, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. #13 ) and REINSTATES this case. As the filing fee was paid (Docket No. 5 ), Plaintiff is responsible for effecting service in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 5/2/2024.(Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (LF)
|
| Filing 14 MANDATE of USCA as to #7 Notice of Appeal filed by ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON (USCA #24-1513) - Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate. (KAA) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dismissal due to mistaken identity, filed by Plaintiff ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(LF) |
|
Filing 12
ENTRY: The Court directed the Clerk to close this case on March 19, 2024, on the basis that the case was filed by a litigant restricted from filing in the courts of the Seventh Circuit. (Docket No. #6 ). The litigant, Andrew Johnston filed a Notice of Appeal on March 30, 2024, averring that he is not the same person as the restricted filer. (Docket No. #7 ). The Court views Mr. Johnston's Notice of Appeal as an implied request for reconsideration. Pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 12.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court respectfully informs the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the Court is inclined to grant Mr. Johnston's request to reconsider, reinstate the case, and proceed to the merits. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 4/10/2024. Copy sent per Distribution list. (LF)
|
| Filing 10 USCA Case Number 24-1513 for #7 Notice of Appeal filed by ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (Attachments: #1 Circuit Rule 3(b) Notice)(LF) |
| Filing 9 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re #7 Notice of Appeal. - for Court of Appeals Use Only. (LF) |
| Filing 8 PARTIES' SHORT RECORD re #7 Notice of Appeal - Instructions for Attorneys/Parties attached.(Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (LF) |
| Filing 11 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (JSR) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #6 Order, filed by Plaintiff ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (No fee paid with this filing) (TPS) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER - This case was filed on March 6, 2024 by pro se Plaintiff Andrew Johnston ostensibly on behalf of his deceased mother's estate. It has come to the Court's attention that Plaintiff is under a filing restriction in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has directed the clerks of all federal courts in the circuit to "return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by him or on his behalf." Johnston v. Ward, et al., No. 20-cv-07247 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2022). The instant case was therefore opened in error. The Clerk is directed to close this case, and to refer the matter to the Chief Judge of this Court for consideration of treatment of future attempted filings by Plaintiff in light of the Seventh Circuit's filing restriction. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by District Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 3/19/2024.(KAA)
|
| Filing 5 RECEIPT #9550 for filing fee in the amount of $405.00, paid by Andrew Johnston via credit card on behalf of ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (DJH) |
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (DJH) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH) |
| Filing 2 Submission of signature page to complaint, filed by Plaintiff ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (LF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, FLOYD COUNTY JAIL, FLOYD COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, DAN FOREMAN, DAN FURMAN, FRANK LOOP, filed by ESTATE OF KATHARINE SARANAM JOHNSTON. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Defendants, #2 Additional Defendants)(DJH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
